Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[là bạn điên]

really? I constantly examine my own position. What Ideology do you think I have?

Well, considering that you started out this thread with the position that there isn't enough evidence to form a concrete opinion on what happened, and then proceed to spend the rest of the thread defending an opposing view...

Er ...no..

I am certainly not sure about what happened. There is not enough evidence to declare Zimmerman innocent. It is quite within the realms of possibility that When he saw that martin had not returned home that he deliberately provoked a confrontation, however it is just that ..a possibility and I think a very small one. IMHO it is definitely most likley that Martin did attack Zimmerman but its just a probability. Certainly no proof either way.

Unfortunately there are people certain of what happened and its based on their ideology. I am putting forward the opposing view to demonstrate that the opposing view is perfectly viable and that there is not the proof necessary for a conviction. the important issue for me is that people's viewpoint seems to be based on ideology.

I would be just as certain that extreme conservatives would be certain that martin had criminal intent from the start and was probably planning to burgle the area, something for which there is similarly no evidence. the fact that Martin had been suspended from school and may have handled stolen goods is also irrelevant.

However you quoted me on ideology then refused to actually address it.

What ideology do you think I have since I maintain it cannot be proven either way?

---

Actually based on Florida "Stand your ground" laws he wasn't guilty of murder or at least couldn't be proved to be. And yes "stand your ground" was a factor in the case whether it was used for the defense or not. The judge even stated that it needed to be taken into account. At least one of the jury quoted it as a reason that they couldn't convict Zimmerman

The issue is that "stand your ground" is nothing more than legalized discrimination and murder. It needs to be changed.

1) please link to the Judge's comments and the jury member's comment.

2) please tell us why stand your ground is 'legalized discrimination' since every citizen is entitled to use it. Why do you think someone has a duty to run away if threatened? Why does it need to be changed?